Volvo V40 2016 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo V40 engine produces 30 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 100 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.4 | 4.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.9 l/100km | 5.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Volvo V40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1170 km in combined cycle | 1240 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1410 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 870 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo V40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo V40 Cross Country | Used also on Mazda 6, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
| Volvo V40 is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Volvo V40 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 335 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1500 litres | 1263 litres | |
| Volvo V40 has 29 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 237 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`920 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 000 | 10 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |